2015
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/9/3695
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mathematical modelling of tumour volume dynamics in response to stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer

Abstract: This paper reports a modelling study of tumour volume dynamics in response to stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). The main objective was to develop a model that is adequate to describe tumour volume change measured during SABR, and at the same time is not excessively complex as lacking support from clinical data. To this end, various modelling options were explored, and a rigorous statistical method, the Akaike information criterion, was used to help determine a trade-off between model accuracy and comp… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
13
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
3

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
4
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As expected, different patients may respond to radiotherapy very differently, a phenomenon also observed in our previous report of modelling SABR patients (Tariq et al 2015), and other related studies (Seibert et al, 2007;Chvetsov et al, 2009;Chvetsov et al, 2014). The inter-patient variability…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…As expected, different patients may respond to radiotherapy very differently, a phenomenon also observed in our previous report of modelling SABR patients (Tariq et al 2015), and other related studies (Seibert et al, 2007;Chvetsov et al, 2009;Chvetsov et al, 2014). The inter-patient variability…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…The first important observation is that the 2-Exp model appears to be a good option for describing noted that similar models have been used in other tumour volume modelling studies (Chvetsov et al, 2014;Tariq et al, 2015).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations